"Western" Means "Legalistic"

[patricius79]

From my discussion with an Eastern Orthodox man, I’ve gotten the impression they see Western Tradition is being very legalistic as to Original Sin, Atonement, and related. He brought up Augustine and Anselm specifically

Has this been addressed on another thread. Or can someone give advice on this or direct to an appropriate article?

 

[Hesychios]

From my discussion with an Eastern Orthodox man, I’ve gotten the impression they see Western Tradition is being very legalistic as to Original Sin, Atonement, and related. He brought up Augustine and Anselm specifically

Has this been addressed on another thread. Or can someone give advice on this or direct to an appropriate article?

I am no expert in these arguments, I sort of stand to the side when people argue the various points, but the general concensus seems to be that the west tends to be more legalistic thatn the east in general. And from the Orthodox perspective in particular the various seminal thinkers in the Latin west kind of drive thinking in one relentless direction, resulting in some unpleasent results.

I copped this out of iWik (not always the best source), it sort of summarizes the opinion:

Eastern Orthodox Churches

The Eastern Orthodox, for another example, rejects the satisfaction theory of the atonement as legalistic. The satisfaction theory states that mankind’s Original Sin violated God’s law, resulting in all men being born guilty: an idea prevalent in the writings of Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo of the Western Church. Anselm formally developed the theory that the legal problem of guilt before the Law, required the legal solution of retribution, in order to achieve a just salvation. The solution was for God’s son Jesus to willingly die on the Cross in place of humanity, thus allowing the legal penalty to be fully carried out, satisfying the justice of God, and thus clearing the way for mercy to be shown to sinners. The Eastern Orthodox charge that this theory is too dependent upon Roman legal concepts of retribution and justice.

 

[Garyjohn2]

One explanation I’ve heard is that in the West, sin is seen as a crime that has to be either punished or atoned for. The East sees sin more like an illness that has to be cured.

This phrasing seems to favor the East’s viewpoint, and I’m not sure how accurate it is. Still, I thought it was an interesting comparison.

 

[patricius79]

thank you Hesychios and GaryJohn2!

That is helpful.

My opinion is that there is miscommunication and mistrust going on on both sides, and that the Western view–like the Eastern view-- is not legalistic, but is based simply on the Word of God that God is both just and merciful.

I think some people in the West read the Eastern writers legalistically. And in this case, I think the Eastern writers sometimes view the West legalistically, as in this matter,

The idea that having a Law and having punishment is “legalistic” is pretty legalistic itself.

 

[Contarini]

thank you Hesychios and GaryJohn2!

That is helpful.

My opinion is that there is miscommunication and mistrust going on on both sides, and that the Western view–like the Eastern view-- is not legalistic, but is based simply on the Word of God that God is both just and merciful.

I think some people in the West read the Eastern writers legalistically. And in this case, I think the Eastern writers sometimes view the West legalistically, as in this matter,

The idea that having a Law and having punishment is “legalistic” is pretty legalistic itself.

How so?

“Legalistic” probably isn’t the best term. I’ve often heard the Orthodox say “juridical,” but that doesn’t mean much to most people. “Legalistic” at least gets a response, but people misunderstand it to mean something like “excessively rigorous.” Actually a legalistic approach is often not rigorous enough, because legalism allows lots of loopholes. I wish my family had been more legalistic and less rigorous

The point is that Western Christianity–particularly Catholicism–tends to think of the Christian Faith in predominantly legal terms.

One excellent example is the attitude of Catholics and Orthodox to divorce. Catholics say that divorce is impossible, and then provide all kinds of loopholes through the concept of annulment. There are certain legal standards that marriage must meet, and if it doesn’t then it can be declared invalid, even years later after the birth of many children. That’s legalism at its “finest.”

The Orthodox, on the other hand, take the view that celibacy is the ideal, with a single marriage close behind as a fully legitimate state of life. Anything else is seen as a falling short (even remarriage after widowhood, which I find hard to accept). But as a concession to human weakness, the Church allows people to remarry. This drives Catholics crazy.

Edwin

 

[scottm]

One explanation I’ve heard is that in the West, sin is seen as a crime that has to be either punished or atoned for. The East sees sin more like an illness that has to be cured.

This phrasing seems to favor the East’s viewpoint, and I’m not sure how accurate it is. Still, I thought it was an interesting comparison.

Ya, that works, and the divorce/remarriage example is a good one too. The goal in Western Christianity is to “get saved” – that is, have your sins paid for and washed away. Jesus died to pay the penalty for your sins. Yes yes from a Roman Catholic perspective there are “works” to be done, but still, Jesus paying for your sins comes first. The angry judge comes first.

The goal in Eastern Christianity is to be like Jesus. In their mind the point of Jesus’ death wasn’t to pay the cosmic creditor or to satisfy the punishment imposed by a cosmic judge. Rather, he died to make you like him. The idea of oneness with God is emphasized. Jesus became one of us so that we can have unity with him, and be like him.

 

[patricius79]

Related to this, I might observe also that in the West, the understanding of “satisfaction” for sin is not understood as the Orthodox think. We do believe that the least act of the Incarnation was sufficient to save us; and we do not believe, e.g., that God could not have forgiven us without “satisfaction” or “full satisfaction” for sin; nor that God’s mercy comes after the satisfaction, as opposed to before; nor that the death of Christ was the only way that God could have chosen redeemed us; nor that the divine justice is having to do with anything other than Love.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The point is that Western Christianity–particularly Catholicism–tends to think of the Christian Faith in predominantly legal terms.

One excellent example is the attitude of Catholics and Orthodox to divorce. Catholics say that divorce is impossible, and then provide all kinds of loopholes through the concept of annulment. There are certain legal standards that marriage must meet, and if it doesn’t then it can be declared invalid, even years later after the birth of many children. That’s legalism at its “finest.”

Edwin

The validity of a marriage has nothign to do with the length of time or the number of children or lack there of. least we forget that you do not have to be married to have a child.
All marriages or presumed to be valid unless it can be proven that at the time of the marriage there were reason why it could not be a valid marriage to begin with. If you wish to call them legal standards fine. I do not think the leagality of a valid or invalid marriage is what is being questioned. Therefore the if a couple were married and had children and later were granted an anulment the children are legitment. the marriage was legal it was not valid.

 

[Contarini]

The validity of a marriage has nothign to do with the length of time or the number of children or lack there of. least we forget that you do not have to be married to have a child.

Certainly. But when two people have been living together for years in the sincere belief that they are husband and wife, and have not only begotten but raised children together, to say that they are not really married is indeed a textbook example of legalism.

The word “legal” is confusing here because people assume that I’m talking about civil law. I’m not. I’m talking about church law.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Related to this, I might observe also that in the West, the understanding of “satisfaction” for sin is not understood as the Orthodox think. We do believe that the least act of the Incarnation was sufficient to save us; and we do not believe, e.g., that God could not have forgiven us without “satisfaction” or “full satisfaction” for sin; nor that God’s mercy comes after the satisfaction, as opposed to before; nor that the death of Christ was the only way that God could have chosen redeemed us; nor that the divine justice is having to do with anything other than Love.

I agree that in certain respects the classical Protestant tradition has taken legalistic soteriology further than you have. Or more precisely, they have stretched the legalistic elements in Western Christianity to the breaking point in order to proclaim what they consider a religion of free grace.

It is important for those of us who grew up Protestant (being told that indeed God’s justice does not let Him forgive us unless either we obey Him perfectly or an innocent victim suffers on our behalf) to remember that Western Catholicism does not, as a whole, take as extreme a view as the one posited by classical Protestantism as the “law” side of the law/gospel dichotomy.

Indeed, the most overtly legal and objectionable elements of late medieval soteriology–indulgences–did not concern eternal salvation at all. Nonetheless, the belief in transfer of merit inherent in indulgences formed the necessary context for the Protestant error of forensic justification. That error was both more fundamental and more pardonable, in my opinion, than the Catholic distortion from which it sprang.

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

One of the Latin Church’s charism is that it is authoritative and administrative in its universal character.

Different regions and cultural groups…different connotations of same elements…thus they always have to ensure people are understanding the true intent of the Oral Tradition and its implementation through the founding work of the Apostles.

Thankfully, the Church has many charisms. The Franciscans focus more on the Humanity of Christ and Divine Love of all creation. They are more of the ‘heart’.

 

[patricius79]

I agree that in certain respects the classical Protestant tradition has taken legalistic soteriology further than you have. Or more precisely, they have stretched the legalistic elements in Western Christianity to the breaking point in order to proclaim what they consider a religion of free grace.

It is important for those of us who grew up Protestant (being told that indeed God’s justice does not let Him forgive us unless either we obey Him perfectly or an innocent victim suffers on our behalf) to remember that Western Catholicism does not, as a whole, take as extreme a view as the one posited by classical Protestantism as the “law” side of the law/gospel dichotomy.

Indeed, the most overtly legal and objectionable elements of late medieval soteriology–indulgences–did not concern eternal salvation at all. Nonetheless, the belief in transfer of merit inherent in indulgences formed the necessary context for the Protestant error of forensic justification. That error was both more fundamental and more pardonable, in my opinion, than the Catholic distortion from which it sprang.

Edwin

I don’t believe that there are any legalistic elements in Western Christianity. There are legal elements, because the Gospel refers to the Law of Christ and to merit and to the sharing of merit.

To say that Western Christianity is “legalistic”, one has to read it legalistically, and without coming to the heart of Western Christianity, as expressed in the doctors of hte Church like Therese of Lisieux and Aquinas and the mystics.

 

[Hesychios]

The validity of a marriage has nothign to do with the length of time or the number of children or lack there of. least we forget that you do not have to be married to have a child.
All marriages or presumed to be valid unless it can be proven that at the time of the marriage there were reason why it could not be a valid marriage to begin with. If you wish to call them legal standards fine. I do not think the leagality of a valid or invalid marriage is what is being questioned. Therefore the if a couple were married and had children and later were granted an anulment the children are legitment. the marriage was legal it was not valid.

Wow, your post looks (to me, at least ) like a darn good example of legalistic thinking applied to church matters.

I have a question. It seems to me that in the past children of an annulled marriage were considered illegitimate by canon law, although today that would be different. In other words it seems to me that the canon law has changed on this matter.

However I could be wrong on this point, am I mistaken in assuming that at one time the children of an annulled marriage could be considered illegitimate? Have such children always been accorded the rights of legitimacy (primarily affecting inheritance and ordination, I think) in the western church?

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t believe that there are any legalistic elements in Western Christianity. There are legal elements, because the Gospel refers to the Law of Christ and to merit and to the sharing of merit.

I think legalism is a tendency, it cannot be considered in absolute terms.

It’s like discussing ‘laziness’ or ‘enthusiasm’ or ‘loving kindness’, these things are present in everyone to varying degrees. We all get some credit and some blame. So legalistic thinking is present everywhere too regardless how we initially react to it, the only question is ‘how much is too much?’ and the east and west have different standards.

To say that Western Christianity is “legalistic”, one has to read it legalistically, and without coming to the heart of Western Christianity, as expressed in the doctors of hte Church like Therese of Lisieux and Aquinas and the mystics.

Leaving out Aquinas for the present (I think he is a scholastic with no equal) I disagree that mysticism is the heart of western Christianity.

However, mysticism is present, it can even be the best (or highest) example of western religious thought. But mysticism is potentially dangerous, it always represents a potential challenge to the authority of the institutional church and is viewed as something to be controlled.

The mysticism we get, the ones we get to read about in TAN books and the Catholic Encyclopedia for example are the ‘tip of the iceberg’, as the result of a screening and sifting process by church authorities.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hesychios…

I have alot to learn about Orthodoxy…do you have a universal catechism…or sacramentary…??

 

[Redbaron998]

I think there is probably some truth in this claim, and I think it has to do mainly with the western way of thinking. Westerners think in a more singular aristianliane way were thinks must be quantified and clarified.

Easterners however think in a more broad way, a seminal way encompossing the core concepts that dont all need to be fleshed out to the extreme but are more poetic in nature. (If I am conveying my point at all)

I dont think eithier is wrong and both lead to ultimately the same concepts, but do so in a different fashion.

 

[dvdjs]

This stereotype is rampant. From another forum:

The Mystical mind is the mind of the Orthodox church and the Legalistic mind is of the West.

And a response from historian Stuart Koehl:

Simplistic and reductionist, as a number of far more enlightened Orthodox theologians would tell you (Metropolitan John of Pergamon and David B. Hart come to mind). Perhaps they are not as popular or frequently read because they do not tell the Orthodox faithful what they want to hear?

…

Maybe you need to hear that you create a false dichotomy: the Orthodox mind is not entirely “mystical” (Vladimir Lossky not withstanding), and the Western mindset is not strictly “legalistic” (some of the more obtuse scholastics not withstanding). In fact, the Orthodox were great believers in order (taxis) and also compiled reams of ecclesiastical legislation, while the Western Church coughed up some of the greatest mystical theologians of all time–Benedict of Nursia, Bernard of Clairvaux, Francis of Assisi, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, Dame Julian of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen, to name but a few.

So, your statement is (a) simplisitic–it does not take into account the diversity of East and West; (b) reductionist–it attempts to p(name removed by moderator)oint the cause of our division in a single factor (a sin compounded by the factor being erroneous); and (c) BS, because it has no basis in fact and no standing as an argument.

The whole thing about the Orthodox East being “mystical” while the Latin West is “legalistic” is simply a caricature that many Orthodox use to bolster their own self-image, a way in which to define themselves in contrast to the Western “other”. Whenever it is repeated, it reinforces the image of the Orthodox as (a) different; and (b) implicitly superior. And that’s why it’s popular, even though, as numerous Orthodox theologians have demonstrated, it’s utterly wrong.

Maybe a bit harsh on the analysis of motivation. I think that most internet Orthodox only repeat the stereotypes that they have been taught. They have little of no sense of legalism that characterized their own history, and likewise have little or no knowledge of the mysticism of the West,.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Wow, your post looks (to me, at least ) like a darn good example of legalistic thinking applied to church matters.

I have a question. It seems to me that in the past children of an annulled marriage were considered illegitimate by canon law, although today that would be different. In other words it seems to me that the canon law has changed on this matter.

However I could be wrong on this point, am I mistaken in assuming that at one time the children of an annulled marriage could be considered illegitimate? Have such children always been accorded the rights of legitimacy (primarily affecting inheritance and ordination, I think) in the western church?

To my knowledge any children from a LEGAL marriage have always been accorded rights of legitimacy. That is because there is a difference between being legal and being valid. If that looks like legalistic think to you I can not help that.

Example in the western church the bread for the Eucharist must be unleaven. The preist if he was to use leaven bread would be legal but not valid.

 

[Hesychios]

To my knowledge any children from a LEGAL marriage have always been accorded rights of legitimacy.

Are you referring to the ‘legal’ as in civil authority and government?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Are you referring to the ‘legal’ as in civil authority and government?

Both. one example is Henry the VIII marriage to Catherine of Aragon was annuled, her Dauther Mary became Queen. so at least as far back as the 1500’s they were legitimate.